Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Can trustees raise a special levy to cover legal costs owed to a body corporate member?

August 28, 2026

MK Party and UAT lose bid to appeal President Ramaphosa’s impeachment pause

August 28, 2026

Tshiamiso Trust pays R2.53bn to 26,300 mineworkers and dependants, faces tough AGM questions

August 28, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Can trustees raise a special levy to cover legal costs owed to a body corporate member?
  • MK Party and UAT lose bid to appeal President Ramaphosa’s impeachment pause
  • Tshiamiso Trust pays R2.53bn to 26,300 mineworkers and dependants, faces tough AGM questions
  • Why Special Tribunal ordered Nkandla architect Minehle Makhanya to repay R147 million
  • Free eye screenings help nearly 200 learners see a brighter future through education
  • Acting magistrate and attorney jailed after repeatedly missing court appearances
  • GOOD caucus promise for permanent municipal job carries no legal weight
  • Remembering Queen Manthatisi, the Amazon who held the knife by the sharp blade
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Former Robben Island Museum CFO loses pension payout amid alleged CV fraud
Regulatory Law

Former Robben Island Museum CFO loses pension payout amid alleged CV fraud

Pension Funds Adjudicator rules that the former chief financial officer's retirement benefit may remain frozen while criminal proceedings and recovery efforts continue.
Conviction Staff ReporterBy Conviction Staff ReporterJuly 9, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
A former Robben Island Museum chief financial officer has been denied a pension payout following findings that he allegedly obtained the position through CV fraud.
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • Former Robben Island Museum CFO loses complaint against the freezing of his pension benefit.
  • Employer alleges he falsely claimed SAICA membership and is seeking to recover more than R4.3 million.
  • Pension Funds Adjudicator finds the retirement fund acted lawfully in withholding the benefit pending criminal proceedings.

On Robben Island, once a symbol of conscience where Nelson Mandela and fellow freedom fighters endured imprisonment for the sake of the truth, a former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Robben Island Museum now stands accused of distorting the truth himself, allegedly by embellishing his résumé.

When the alleged fraud surfaced, he was dismissed, and his withdrawal benefit of R389,534.33 was frozen by the retirement fund at the employer’s request while criminal proceedings are pending.

He contested this move, arguing that the fund had no right to hold onto his money. However, Pension Funds Adjudicator Lebogang Mogashoa disagreed, siding with the fund and ruling that it was justified to keep the benefit on hold until the legal process determines whether the employer’s accusations of dishonesty can be proven.

Employer requests pension freeze

The complainant worked as CFO at the Robben Island Museum from 1 June 2023 until 12 June 2025 and was a member of the Alexander Forbes Retirement Fund. On 13 July 2025, the museum informed the fund that the CFO had been dismissed after a disciplinary hearing into alleged fraud. The museum asked the fund to withhold his withdrawal benefit.

The employer claimed the CFO falsely stated he was a member of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) when he was appointed to the senior finance role. According to the museum, it suffered financial losses because it paid him more than R2 million in salary for a position he allegedly was not qualified to hold.

Former CFO disputes decision

On 16 September 2025, the retirement fund told the CFO about the employer’s request and invited him to make representations. Through his legal representative, he submitted his arguments on 25 September 2025. After considering these, the fund decided on 17 October 2025 to withhold his benefit until criminal proceedings are finalised.

The CFO argued that the decision was unjustified as he had not been criminally charged or served with a civil claim for unjustified enrichment.

He said that seven months had passed since the employer indicated it intended to take legal action, yet no criminal charges had been laid by the South African Police Service, and no civil action had been brought against him for alleged dishonest misconduct.

Employer alleges losses exceeding R4 Million

The retirement fund told the adjudicator that the employer and the complainant were involved in several legal disputes. The employer was consulting legal advisers to quantify losses allegedly caused by the CFO’s fraudulent misrepresentation, estimating damages at about R3 million, excluding legal costs. The fund pointed out that the withdrawal benefit would be insufficient to cover the alleged losses.

The CFO’s legal representative argued that the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation was unfounded, pointing to an affidavit in which he stated his SAICA membership was terminated due to non-payment of fees.

The fund said Section 37D of the Pension Funds Act allows employers to recover losses from theft, fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct by employees, and permits funds to withhold benefits pending legal proceedings when requirements are met. The employer confirmed it had opened a criminal case and that the matter was before prosecutors.

Between 6 December 2022 and 12 June 2025, the employer alleged, the CFO earned remuneration under false pretences totalling R4,353,711.84, while his pension benefit amounted to just R388,192.67. The employer said its case was supported by an affidavit from SAICA confirming the CFO’s name did not appear on the Chartered Accountants’ register.

A letter of demand dated 2 December 2025 sought repayment of R4,353,711.84 and stated that the employment contract was regarded as invalid. Additionally, the employer claimed it incurred about R3 million in legal costs defending unsuccessful court actions brought by the CFO, and around R2 million in irregular expenditure from alleged procurement irregularities linked to his conduct.

Adjudicator finds the fund acted lawfully

In his determination, the adjudicator stated that it is legally permissible for a retirement fund to deduct money from a member’s benefit to compensate an employer for losses caused by theft, fraud, dishonesty, or misconduct.

He found that the employer had established a prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation, backed by the SAICA affidavit showing the CFO’s name was not on the Chartered Accountants’ register.

The adjudicator noted, “A fund may only invoke Section 37D(1)(b) if the conduct is dishonest or has an element of dishonesty... The affidavit from SAICA indicates that the complainant does not appear on its register of Chartered Accountants. At prima facie, the conduct constitutes an element of dishonesty.”

Although the employer had not yet filed a civil claim for damages, the adjudicator pointed out, “It has sent a letter of demand invalidating the employment contract and seeking damages from the complainant.” He continued, “Further, the criminal matter is currently in the hands of prosecutors, and the employer is not responsible for any delay in this regard.

“Therefore, I am satisfied that the loss alleged against the complainant arises from dishonesty. Thus, the withholding of his benefit is substantively lawful.”

Fund followed a fair process

The adjudicator also found that the retirement fund had followed a fair process by allowing the CFO to present his case. He said, “The complainant was allowed to make representations regarding the allegations against him, and the fund made a decision after considering the representations.”

He concluded that the withholding of the withdrawal benefit was procedurally lawful and complied with the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The complaint was dismissed.

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

CV fraud Employment dispute Labour law Pension payout Robben Island Museum
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Conviction Staff Reporter

Conviction.co.za — Towards a Positive Impact on People

Related Posts

Acting magistrate and attorney jailed after repeatedly missing court appearances

August 28, 2026

RAF loses two High Court battles in separate R9.4 million loss-of-earnings cases

August 26, 2026

Banking Ombud recovers R53 million for fraud victims in one year

August 26, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 5   +   10   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

June 2, 2025
Don't Miss
Sectional Title Law
4 Mins Read

Can trustees raise a special levy to cover legal costs owed to a body corporate member?

By Ashwini SinghAugust 28, 20264 Mins Read

Can trustees raise a special levy to pay legal costs? South African law sets strict limits on when body corporates may impose special levies.

MK Party and UAT lose bid to appeal President Ramaphosa’s impeachment pause

August 28, 2026

Tshiamiso Trust pays R2.53bn to 26,300 mineworkers and dependants, faces tough AGM questions

August 28, 2026

Why Special Tribunal ordered Nkandla architect Minehle Makhanya to repay R147 million

August 28, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
OUR PICKS

Pretoria court registrar who issued fraudulent court orders struck off legal roll

August 17, 2026

Judges order Free State Premier to decide on Barolong Boo Seleka leadership dispute

August 7, 2026

Eskom ordered to tackle Kusile pollution with urgent 30-day environmental action plan

August 17, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by